As shown here: the increase of details with more pixels and the increase of errors if the pixels become too small. The result is a decrease in sensitivity of the camera and an increase in noise because the amount of light collected by a single pixel is smaller. At the same time, increasing the number of pixels is supposed to lead to more details (resolution), but in order to achieve that better lenses with high resolution and a lower lateral chromatic abberation are needed. However better lenses are bigger and don’t fulfill the requirements for ’small’ cameras any more.
Your post is a little difficult to follow by just reading your post. Are you saying that you want a 6MP camera in the iPhone? The article was very clear about how many MP a "good" sensor should be and I completely disagree. They said that the 1D should be 37MP and that the SD30 should be no more than 2.7MP. I have owned each (a mk2 for the 1D) and found that the noise was NEVER that bad at an ISO of 400 in a clear, daylight picture. Are you hoping that they put a sensor the size of the one in the Canon G7 into an iPhone?
I guess that I'm just confused why you would say you want a better camera, then cite an article that says that the iPhone cannot have less than a 1/1.8" sensor if you want it to be a 4MP camera. I don't know if it would physically work out to have such nice electronics and such a large sensor within a tiny space.
Thank you, another person who understands photography. 5mp with horrible glass is like a great QB with horrible receivers. It doesn't matter how good they are if their teammates cannot catch. Just the same, great electronics (for a phone) will not compensate for bad glass.
You dont say? Of course ideally we would like great quality optics and maybe a ccd sensor, multiple aspheric glass elements, decent buffers, instant start, zero shutter lag, OZ, IS,FD and multiple focus zone whilst your at it.
Thing realistically for a mintue. Camera phones lack all those things listed above but including them in a device already as expensive as the iphone will only push the price higher, not to mention the phone would become bulkier. Thats why camera phones will always be behind most digital cameras.
To an extent, yes, but the iPhone doesn't have competitive optics either.
My Sony Ericsson K750, had a really respectable camera. 2.5 mega-pixels, and could occasionally take a shot good enough to make a print from. But the lens cover meant the phone was really bulky and somewhat fragile.
Personally I use a real camera for "photography". I only want a phone cam for random snaps of wherever I happen to be. The iPhone's miniscule camera and lousy optics manages perfectly respectable polaroid-style images. Is it good enough for an 8x10 print? No way! Is it good enough for "here's Sally photocopying her bottom at the office party", yeah. I think it is.
I'll admit my stupidity, what is OZ? Also, why are you including FD (focal distance) into the mix? Every camera has that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Is it good enough for "here's Sally photocopying her bottom at the office party", yeah. I think it is.
Maybe not "high aspirations," but I will admit that I have never had an opportunity that good with my camera phone. Such a shame.... Maybe if I had, I would be on board with everybody else that wants a 5mp camera.
It's funny how two people deride a phone-cam for only having two million pixels - and yet consider that same figure to be perfectly adequate for HDTV.
That's kind of silly since you're not capturing the HD video.
I would be happy with a better quality, 2MP camera with flash. Something that can capture excellent images in different lighting situations and a faster "shutter speed". More intelligent software that does image stabilization.
Wanting a better 2MP camera is akin to wanting to watch a Blueray disc on your home theater vs. a regular DVD or VHS tape. I want a cleaner, higher quality image.
That's kind of silly since you're not capturing the HD video.
I would be happy with a better quality, 2MP camera with flash. Something that can capture excellent images in different lighting situations and a faster "shutter speed". More intelligent software that does image stabilization.
Surely what you are looking for is a device called a camera?
I have a horrible feeling that if some people get their way, in five years time, we will be lugging round 'phones with a specification and weight not unlike a RED1. George Lucas will be shooting a movie on it, and people will sit in pubs talking about how good a bluescreen plate they can pull.
For me, if the iPhone's camera could be improved without gaining any weight or thickness I'd be happy. But if I wanted the love-child of a compact camera and an telephone, I'd buy a Viewty.
Surely what you are looking for is a device called a camera?
I have a horrible feeling that if some people get their way, in five years time, we will be lugging round 'phones with a specification and weight not unlike a RED1. George Lucas will be shooting a movie on it, and people will sit in pubs talking about how good a bluescreen plate they can pull.
For me, if the iPhone's camera could be improved without gaining any weight or thickness I'd be happy. But if I wanted the love-child of a compact camera and an telephone, I'd buy a Viewty.
C.
So why is the iPhone not a monstrous device considering it has a better camera than the Razr? Its not particularly thick and the iPhone has a better quality camera and software controlling it. You go right ahead and buy a Viewty; however, I still want an iPhone with a better camera.
In my mind it would be bad design if the requirements of the camera (secondary function) were to undermine the design of the phone (primary function). For instance by making it 5mm thicker.
Just as it would be bad design if the performance of my car (a vehicle) were undermined by the requirements of the stereo (an entertainment system) .... Of course - Some people actually want a pair of 500Watt subwoofers in their trunk.
Someone once said "For me, if the iPhone's camera could be improved without gaining any weight or thickness I'd be happy"
Your post is a little difficult to follow by just reading your post. Are you saying that you want a 6MP camera in the iPhone?
No just the basic concept that more MP does not automatically mean a better camera. Other elements than only the sensor also need to improve.
Quote:
It's funny how two people deride a phone-cam for only having two million pixels - and yet consider that same figure to be perfectly adequate for HDTV.
HD works because you are not watching one image. You are watching 50 to 60 images per second. Your eye is tricked into seeing 64,800 lines of resolution in a second.
Quote:
To an extent, yes, but the iPhone doesn't have competitive optics either.
The camera on the iphone isn't trying to be competitive with other cameras.
Quote:
I would be happy with a better quality, 2MP camera with flash. Something that can capture excellent images in different lighting situations and a faster "shutter speed". More intelligent software that does image stabilization.
The only way to do this is to add a camera onto the phone the way the Viewty has.
I'll admit my stupidity, what is OZ? Also, why are you including FD (focal distance) into the mix? Every camera has that...
Maybe not "high aspirations," but I will admit that I have never had an opportunity that good with my camera phone. Such a shame.... Maybe if I had, I would be on board with everybody else that wants a 5mp camera.
Optical zoom. And yes all cameras have focal distance but camera phones are a different story.
I am not sure if anyone has added this to the request list but what would be really nice is some type of LED that blinks when the phone is not in use and you have a ical alarm, sms message, voice message or and email waiting so you did not have to always pickup the phone and check it to make sure you have not missed anything.
just some type of blink light under the glass near the earphone as an example.
Yeah there are issues with decreasing the pixel size i conventional CCD detectors. How ever a lot of research is going into over coming the physical restrictions. A couple of months ago Spectra/Photonics ran several articles about research going into advance detectors specifically for the cell phone market. It is not the type of thing that can be reproduced here but if you are interested in what may be the state of the art in a year or two it is worth a read. The goal of course is far better image quality out of extremely small cameras.
Quote:
As shown here: the increase of details with more pixels and the increase of errors if the pixels become too small. The result is a decrease in sensitivity of the camera and an increase in noise because the amount of light collected by a single pixel is smaller.
That pretty much sums it up. The goal of course is to over come those issues.
Quote:
At the same time, increasing the number of pixels is supposed to lead to more details (resolution), but in order to achieve that better lenses with high resolution and a lower lateral chromatic abberation are needed. However better lenses are bigger and don?t fulfill the requirements for ?small? cameras any more.
I was always under the impression that the larger the lens the harder it is to achieve perfection. Larger lenses do offer advantages though. One of them being faster F-stops and a wider zoom range. What I'd like to see is a cell phone camera with a folded lens assembly. That is to accommodate the longer focal length with a lens assembly the swivels out of the way.
Done right a swiveling lens/camera assembly would allow for longer lens. More so it could be designed to swivel both ways. One to take pictures as expected and the second to frame the user for conferencing.
I've read with interest part of this thread, especially the remarks directed at "bav".
First thing is that I don't have inside info and frankly am far removed from the people involved in the cell phone industry. Second I don't know bav nor do I know if he is posting based on good info or not.
What I do know is that Apple needs more products to feed the Cell Phone market than the iPhone. If there was ever a place where one size DOES NOT FIT ALL it is the cell business. So I pretty much expect a much cheaper dumb phone at the low end.
Will such a device come out at MWSF, I really don't know. I do know that there are many products in Apples line up that are due for upgrades. If the show is focused on those aging products then the introduction of new cell phones may happen elsewhere.
As far as IPhone 2 goes, I do have the suspicion that it is to early. Thinking is leaning this way due to the likely chip sets not becoming available until later or just becoming available in the new year. The other issue with the release of cell phones at MWSF is that a month later Apple is set to release the SDK. Seems like they would want to make a media circus out of that. So I see the iPhone 2 as coming out later in the year.
One very interesting possibility is that Apple goes the Software Defined Radio (SDR) route and uses a chip set that can be upgrade via software updates for what every transmission standard Apple wants to support. This could allow the release of a cell at MWSF that eventually can handle 3G and other protocols.
Good points. The thing is that when Apple got into the mp3 market there was no competition so al they had to do was get a decent device out there and they were sorted.
The phone market is much more saturated. Most people know exactly what they want. It's not so evident in the US as the market is quite some way behind there but in Europe you can tell is plain black and white. You have Nokia who are untouched at the top of the game, they dominate the market with phones to suit all types. Low end, mid range, high end, musc centric, video centric, all in one....you name it they have a phone for it. They release a new phone almost every month and are leaders of the smartphone AND dumbphone market.
As some have pointed out Apple look for profitablity ahead of sales so to be honest I dont see them wanting to change their strategy as there is no way they can generate the sort of sales worldwide that Nokia do. Fristly this is because their phones cant compete spec wise with the rest and they are overpriced. iphone may do some things very well but that seems tainted when you consider how much it doesnt do.
Some people like to refer to the iphone as the Mercedez or BMW of the phone industry hence it deserves to have a high price tag but Mercedez and BMW dont lack in any gimmicks which other cars have. They do everything what most other cars do and have the prestige on top.
Apple need to first pull its head out of its arse and get of its high horse if its wants to penetrate the market outside the USA. Im not a fanboy of any particular brand, I simply look to buy a phone which can offer me as much as possible. I really want to like the iphone but I know id get annoyed after a while at not being able to share videos with mates via bluetooth or not being able to drag and drop any media content direct to my phone. For those on here who dont see it in that light, well thats the difference really between our markets.
Camera phones are huge over here, where as they are still in their infancy in the states. Of course no phone cam will match a digital camera but for candid shots when you are out and about its nice to have a 5mp cam with VGA 30fps video.
iphone is a nice idea buts its not really taken seriously by hardcore phone geeks im afraid to say. The mere assocaition of the word "smartphone" with iphone is a joke in itself as there is so much it doesnt do.
Overall its a good attempt for a first phone from Apple but im expecting better things come the 15th.
Comments
1) A great camera
Good explanation of why increasing the megapixel count of compact digital cameras actually makes image quality worse, because it increases the noise.
As shown here: the increase of details with more pixels and the increase of errors if the pixels become too small. The result is a decrease in sensitivity of the camera and an increase in noise because the amount of light collected by a single pixel is smaller. At the same time, increasing the number of pixels is supposed to lead to more details (resolution), but in order to achieve that better lenses with high resolution and a lower lateral chromatic abberation are needed. However better lenses are bigger and don’t fulfill the requirements for ’small’ cameras any more.
I guess that I'm just confused why you would say you want a better camera, then cite an article that says that the iPhone cannot have less than a 1/1.8" sensor if you want it to be a 4MP camera. I don't know if it would physically work out to have such nice electronics and such a large sensor within a tiny space.
Thank you, another person who understands photography. 5mp with horrible glass is like a great QB with horrible receivers. It doesn't matter how good they are if their teammates cannot catch. Just the same, great electronics (for a phone) will not compensate for bad glass.
You dont say? Of course ideally we would like great quality optics and maybe a ccd sensor, multiple aspheric glass elements, decent buffers, instant start, zero shutter lag, OZ, IS,FD and multiple focus zone whilst your at it.
Thing realistically for a mintue. Camera phones lack all those things listed above but including them in a device already as expensive as the iphone will only push the price higher, not to mention the phone would become bulkier. Thats why camera phones will always be behind most digital cameras.
C.
Who cares about 3.2 or 5 MP. It's the optics that matter.
To an extent, yes, but the iPhone doesn't have competitive optics either.
To an extent, yes, but the iPhone doesn't have competitive optics either.
My Sony Ericsson K750, had a really respectable camera. 2.5 mega-pixels, and could occasionally take a shot good enough to make a print from. But the lens cover meant the phone was really bulky and somewhat fragile.
Personally I use a real camera for "photography". I only want a phone cam for random snaps of wherever I happen to be. The iPhone's miniscule camera and lousy optics manages perfectly respectable polaroid-style images. Is it good enough for an 8x10 print? No way! Is it good enough for "here's Sally photocopying her bottom at the office party", yeah. I think it is.
Photos Taken with iPhone
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=%22t...+iPhone&page=3
C.
Is it good enough for "here's Sally photocopying her bottom at the office party", yeah. I think it is.
Such low aspirations.
OZ, IS,FD
I'll admit my stupidity, what is OZ? Also, why are you including FD (focal distance) into the mix? Every camera has that...
Is it good enough for "here's Sally photocopying her bottom at the office party", yeah. I think it is.
Maybe not "high aspirations," but I will admit that I have never had an opportunity that good with my camera phone. Such a shame.... Maybe if I had, I would be on board with everybody else that wants a 5mp camera.
It's funny how two people deride a phone-cam for only having two million pixels - and yet consider that same figure to be perfectly adequate for HDTV.
That's kind of silly since you're not capturing the HD video.
I would be happy with a better quality, 2MP camera with flash. Something that can capture excellent images in different lighting situations and a faster "shutter speed". More intelligent software that does image stabilization.
Wanting a better 2MP camera is akin to wanting to watch a Blueray disc on your home theater vs. a regular DVD or VHS tape. I want a cleaner, higher quality image.
That's kind of silly since you're not capturing the HD video.
I would be happy with a better quality, 2MP camera with flash. Something that can capture excellent images in different lighting situations and a faster "shutter speed". More intelligent software that does image stabilization.
Surely what you are looking for is a device called a camera?
I have a horrible feeling that if some people get their way, in five years time, we will be lugging round 'phones with a specification and weight not unlike a RED1. George Lucas will be shooting a movie on it, and people will sit in pubs talking about how good a bluescreen plate they can pull.
For me, if the iPhone's camera could be improved without gaining any weight or thickness I'd be happy. But if I wanted the love-child of a compact camera and an telephone, I'd buy a Viewty.
C.
Surely what you are looking for is a device called a camera?
I have a horrible feeling that if some people get their way, in five years time, we will be lugging round 'phones with a specification and weight not unlike a RED1. George Lucas will be shooting a movie on it, and people will sit in pubs talking about how good a bluescreen plate they can pull.
For me, if the iPhone's camera could be improved without gaining any weight or thickness I'd be happy. But if I wanted the love-child of a compact camera and an telephone, I'd buy a Viewty.
C.
So why is the iPhone not a monstrous device considering it has a better camera than the Razr? Its not particularly thick and the iPhone has a better quality camera and software controlling it. You go right ahead and buy a Viewty; however, I still want an iPhone with a better camera.
In my mind it would be bad design if the requirements of the camera (secondary function) were to undermine the design of the phone (primary function). For instance by making it 5mm thicker.
Just as it would be bad design if the performance of my car (a vehicle) were undermined by the requirements of the stereo (an entertainment system) .... Of course - Some people actually want a pair of 500Watt subwoofers in their trunk.
Someone once said "For me, if the iPhone's camera could be improved without gaining any weight or thickness I'd be happy"
C.
Your post is a little difficult to follow by just reading your post. Are you saying that you want a 6MP camera in the iPhone?
No just the basic concept that more MP does not automatically mean a better camera. Other elements than only the sensor also need to improve.
It's funny how two people deride a phone-cam for only having two million pixels - and yet consider that same figure to be perfectly adequate for HDTV.
HD works because you are not watching one image. You are watching 50 to 60 images per second. Your eye is tricked into seeing 64,800 lines of resolution in a second.
To an extent, yes, but the iPhone doesn't have competitive optics either.
The camera on the iphone isn't trying to be competitive with other cameras.
I would be happy with a better quality, 2MP camera with flash. Something that can capture excellent images in different lighting situations and a faster "shutter speed". More intelligent software that does image stabilization.
The only way to do this is to add a camera onto the phone the way the Viewty has.
I'll admit my stupidity, what is OZ? Also, why are you including FD (focal distance) into the mix? Every camera has that...
Maybe not "high aspirations," but I will admit that I have never had an opportunity that good with my camera phone. Such a shame.... Maybe if I had, I would be on board with everybody else that wants a 5mp camera.
Optical zoom. And yes all cameras have focal distance but camera phones are a different story.
Optical zoom. And yes all cameras have focal distance but camera phones are a different story.
How so?
just some type of blink light under the glass near the earphone as an example.
Good explanation of why increasing the megapixel count of compact digital cameras actually makes image quality worse, because it increases the noise.
Yeah there are issues with decreasing the pixel size i conventional CCD detectors. How ever a lot of research is going into over coming the physical restrictions. A couple of months ago Spectra/Photonics ran several articles about research going into advance detectors specifically for the cell phone market. It is not the type of thing that can be reproduced here but if you are interested in what may be the state of the art in a year or two it is worth a read. The goal of course is far better image quality out of extremely small cameras.
As shown here: the increase of details with more pixels and the increase of errors if the pixels become too small. The result is a decrease in sensitivity of the camera and an increase in noise because the amount of light collected by a single pixel is smaller.
That pretty much sums it up. The goal of course is to over come those issues.
At the same time, increasing the number of pixels is supposed to lead to more details (resolution), but in order to achieve that better lenses with high resolution and a lower lateral chromatic abberation are needed. However better lenses are bigger and don?t fulfill the requirements for ?small? cameras any more.
I was always under the impression that the larger the lens the harder it is to achieve perfection. Larger lenses do offer advantages though. One of them being faster F-stops and a wider zoom range. What I'd like to see is a cell phone camera with a folded lens assembly. That is to accommodate the longer focal length with a lens assembly the swivels out of the way.
Done right a swiveling lens/camera assembly would allow for longer lens. More so it could be designed to swivel both ways. One to take pictures as expected and the second to frame the user for conferencing.
Dave
First thing is that I don't have inside info and frankly am far removed from the people involved in the cell phone industry. Second I don't know bav nor do I know if he is posting based on good info or not.
What I do know is that Apple needs more products to feed the Cell Phone market than the iPhone. If there was ever a place where one size DOES NOT FIT ALL it is the cell business. So I pretty much expect a much cheaper dumb phone at the low end.
Will such a device come out at MWSF, I really don't know. I do know that there are many products in Apples line up that are due for upgrades. If the show is focused on those aging products then the introduction of new cell phones may happen elsewhere.
As far as IPhone 2 goes, I do have the suspicion that it is to early. Thinking is leaning this way due to the likely chip sets not becoming available until later or just becoming available in the new year. The other issue with the release of cell phones at MWSF is that a month later Apple is set to release the SDK. Seems like they would want to make a media circus out of that. So I see the iPhone 2 as coming out later in the year.
One very interesting possibility is that Apple goes the Software Defined Radio (SDR) route and uses a chip set that can be upgrade via software updates for what every transmission standard Apple wants to support. This could allow the release of a cell at MWSF that eventually can handle 3G and other protocols.
Dave
The phone market is much more saturated. Most people know exactly what they want. It's not so evident in the US as the market is quite some way behind there but in Europe you can tell is plain black and white. You have Nokia who are untouched at the top of the game, they dominate the market with phones to suit all types. Low end, mid range, high end, musc centric, video centric, all in one....you name it they have a phone for it. They release a new phone almost every month and are leaders of the smartphone AND dumbphone market.
As some have pointed out Apple look for profitablity ahead of sales so to be honest I dont see them wanting to change their strategy as there is no way they can generate the sort of sales worldwide that Nokia do. Fristly this is because their phones cant compete spec wise with the rest and they are overpriced. iphone may do some things very well but that seems tainted when you consider how much it doesnt do.
Some people like to refer to the iphone as the Mercedez or BMW of the phone industry hence it deserves to have a high price tag but Mercedez and BMW dont lack in any gimmicks which other cars have. They do everything what most other cars do and have the prestige on top.
Apple need to first pull its head out of its arse and get of its high horse if its wants to penetrate the market outside the USA. Im not a fanboy of any particular brand, I simply look to buy a phone which can offer me as much as possible. I really want to like the iphone but I know id get annoyed after a while at not being able to share videos with mates via bluetooth or not being able to drag and drop any media content direct to my phone. For those on here who dont see it in that light, well thats the difference really between our markets.
Camera phones are huge over here, where as they are still in their infancy in the states. Of course no phone cam will match a digital camera but for candid shots when you are out and about its nice to have a 5mp cam with VGA 30fps video.
iphone is a nice idea buts its not really taken seriously by hardcore phone geeks im afraid to say. The mere assocaition of the word "smartphone" with iphone is a joke in itself as there is so much it doesnt do.
Overall its a good attempt for a first phone from Apple but im expecting better things come the 15th.